Wednesday, December 19, 2012

We need to re-examine gun control

I'm not a
gun person.I've never owned one, and my
father never took me hunting when I was a kid.I once went to a firing range, took some training, and spent half an
hour punching holes in a paper target, but that's about it.I've never been particularly anti-gun
either.Had you asked me in a survey if
I supported increased gun legislation, I would have said yes in an ambivalent
sort of way, but it was never my issue.

That
changed on December 14, 2012, in the Newtown Elementary school massacre.My thoughts on the subject are captured below
in question and answer format.If you
are a gun proponent and believe I've missed some significant arguments, I would
sincerely like to hear them in the comments.

Q: Aren't
you politicizing a tragedy?

A:
No.Politicizing the tragedy would be to
suggest it wouldn't have happened under a republican white house, or a
democratic congress, etc...Advocating gun
control following a gun related tragedy is no more political than advocating a
review of fire safety standards after a fire.

Q: Guns
don't kill people.People kill people.

A:
True.But guns make people much more
efficient at it.Newtown Elementary
involved guns.So did Columbine, and the
shooting at Aurora.

Q: What
about 9/11?

A:
True.Even with no guns, there will be
the potential for large scale catastrophic incidents.But they'll be much more rare.9/11 took years of sophisticated planning -
it's not something a lone lunatic is likely to be able to achieve.Also, you'll note that after 9/11, we took significant
action to prevent a recurrence.While
you can argue for or against the effectiveness of any particular bit of airport
security, you must acknowledge that there has not been a recurrence of that
type of large scale airline hijacking since 9/11.There have, however, been multiple
recurrences of large scale shootings in public places since Columbine.

Q: What
about Oklahoma City?

A: Once
again, you'll note that after the bombing of Oklahoma city, we introduced new
safety restrictions around government and other buildings to make it more
difficult for somebody to drive up and detonate a bomb.And once again, you'll note we haven't had a
major recurrence since then.We try to
make things better after every plane crash, after every major fire, and after
every financial disaster.It's only gun
violence that we allow to recur again and again.Something is wrong with this picture.

A: While
there is anecdotal evidence of specific crimes being prevented, there is no
evidence that gun ownership lowers the overall crime rate.Gun ownership did not prevent Newtown, or
Columbine, or Aurora, or Virginia Tech.Also, if gun ownership prevents crime, we should expect to see
significantly higher levels of crime in countries such as the United Kingdom
and Australia (which I picked for their cultural similarity to us, and
different approach to gun laws).This is
not the case.The United Kingdom has an
"intentional homicide rate" of 1.2 per 100,000.Australia's rate is 1.0.The rate for the United Stated is 4.2.That's a higher rate than France, Spain,
Portugal, Germany, or Italy.It's even
higher than Libya, Algeria, Somalia, Iraq or Iran.A citizen of Switzerland coming to the United
States faces roughly the same increase in danger that a citizen of the United
States would face traveling to Sudan, Kyrgyzstan, or Tanzania.In case you're not familiar with these
countries, it would be safer to go to Rwanda.

Q: The
constitution protects gun ownership.

A: Three
points on that:

1.Congress
has already implemented some gun legislation.It’s relatively toothless, but the legal precedent has been established.

2.The constitution doesn't spell
out the right for individual gun ownership.It states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed."Our current
policies on gun ownership do not require a prospective owner to be a member of
a well regulated militia.One could
easily restrict guns to members of the police, army and national guard without
straying from the wording of the constitution, as long as any able bodied
individual was permitted to join these institutions (especially the
guard).I admit that I'm on the opposite
side of current judicial thinking on this one.In his decision on District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Antonia
Scalia wrote "Nowhere else in the Constitution does a 'right' attributed
to 'the people' refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more,
in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention 'the people,' the
term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an
unspecified subset."In short, he
argued that because every other part of the constitution only deals with
individual liberties, this section should be interpreted as dealing with
individual liberty as well.Put another
way, he argues that this section of the constitution is unconstitutional, and
should be reinterpreted based on how the rest of it is written.I think that logic requires a serious
re-examination in court.

3.I'm willing to back a change
in the constitution if need be.The
constitution supported slavery.Then one
day, we said "that's not who we are", and we changed the
constitution.It's a great
document.It's not infallible.

Q:
Changing the constitution just isn't feasible.

A:
Neither was eradicating smallpox, or traveling to the moon.Until we did both of these things.There are some problems that are so vexing
that we just have no idea how to start.This is not one of those problems.Difficult?Yes.But that's hardly a reason not to do it.

Q:
Restricting guns is a restriction of individual liberty.

A: True,
to a point.Not restricting guns is also
a restriction of liberty.The word
freedom is an often misused concept.It
is rarely acknowledged that every "freedom to" is an infringement on
a "freedom from".This was
well summarized by Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said: "The right to swing my
fist ends where the other man's nose begins."Whenever we discuss protecting or infringing
liberty, we need to look at both sides of this equation.In this case, I believe that your freedom to
own a gun is outweighed by a first grader's right not to be massacred in the
classroom.

Q: If the
shooter in Newtown didn't have guns, he just would have found another way to
commit this atrocity.

A:I'm sure he would have tried.But I don't believe he would have gotten
nearly as far as he did before one of the adults at the school managed to take
him down.

Q: We
have a long tradition of gun ownership in this country.

A: The
South had a long tradition of slavery.But it was wrong, so we ended it.Not all traditions can or should be maintained.

Q: If we
abolish gun ownership today, what's to stop somebody from ending other
constitutional liberties like free speech tomorrow?

A: Me,
you, and every other citizen who values free speech.The day that we are massively outnumbered by
citizens who believe that the costs of free speech are too heavy to bear, then
free speech will end.Whether or not
that day ever comes has nothing to do with whether we address gun ownership
today.

Q: I'm a
responsible gun owner.Why must I pay
the price for some lunatic's actions?

A:
Because, unfortunately, lunatics look like everybody else.If there's a reliable way to prevent lunatics
from ever getting their hands on guns, I'm all ears.Sadly, the NRA, which should have been
leading the effort to ensure that only responsible, committed people get their
hands on guns, had instead been opposing every effort to take steps in this
direction.

Q: If the
citizenry is unarmed, what's to stop the US government from taking over and
turning into a police state?

A: The
same thing that prevents this from happening in the United Kingdom, Australia,
Japan, and most other first world countries that have much more restricted gun
ownership.The fact that politicians and
the army consist of your friends and neighbors.

Q: If you
made it illegal to buy guns tomorrow, there would still be millions of guns in
people's homes.

A: Most
gun owners are responsible, honest citizens who would turn in their guns if it
became illegal to own them.That right
there would have stopped the Newtown shooter, who apparently got his guns from
the collection of his mother, a gun enthusiast.There would still be people who would insist on keeping grandpa's
vintage rifle in the attic.But the more
effort it takes for lunatics to find these guns, and the more people they have
to ask to find where these guns are, the more likely they'll be stopped before
the tragedy begins.It would definitely
take time.Once again, that's no reason
not to begin.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Follow by Email

About Me

Technology by itself is interesting. But what makes it fascinating is watching and trying to understand the larger kaleidoscope of patterns as technologies rise, fall, interact with each other, and shape and are shaped by the humans who use them. I love watching what emerges, and trying to recognize the invisible currents of technology patterns that lie just below the surface.